Fred M. Winner

The case involved a defendant indicted on multiple counts who faced trial on a single obstruction of justice charge after a grand jury investigation led by IRS agents and Tax Division attorneys from the Department of Justice. Following a guilty verdict, the defendant sought dismissal or a new trial based on alleged misconduct by the IRS and prosecutors during the grand jury and trial proceedings. The court reviewed the record and identified irregularities in the grand jury process, including improper appointments of agents and prosecutorial actions that violated standards of impartiality, while noting no issues with the local U.S. Attorney's office. It granted the motion for a new trial due to these problems but denied the motion for judgment of acquittal, leaving that issue open for another judge. The opinion also addressed grand jury secrecy under Rule 6 and ordered limited disclosures.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved attorney Joel Mallin's assigned claim against bankrupt King Resources Company for $115,390.21 in unpaid legal fees and disbursements arising from work performed in 1970 during an attempted takeover of Investor's Overseas Services. After rejecting a Special Master's $50,000 award for lack of supporting analysis, the court conducted further hearings and allowed $34,654.60 based on evidence of services rendered. The court reduced the hours claimed to a maximum of 10 per day, limited compensation to specific time periods tied to the transaction, disallowed some unapproved or excessive expenses such as air conditioning, and accounted for conflicts of interest and overstated billing.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a postal worker charged under a City of Aurora ordinance with assault for spraying a person with dog repellent while chasing a loose puppy. After removal to federal court due to the defendant's federal employment, a magistrate convicted him following a trial and imposed a fine or community service. On appeal, the district court affirmed the conviction in full. The court reasoned that removal requires application of state substantive criminal law but federal procedural rules, and the evidence clearly supported the magistrate's credibility findings and guilty verdict.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

The case concerned a defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment under the Speedy Trial Act after the court had ordered a new trial in a severed criminal prosecution due to the government's failure to disclose required evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 3500 and Brady, as well as other fairness concerns arising from related cases. The court held that the Speedy Trial Act's time limits applied to the retrial and that unreasonable delay had occurred, even though the Act's dismissal sanctions under § 3162 were not expressly applicable because of statutory effective dates. Relying on the Act's goals and Rule 48(b), the court dismissed the indictment without prejudice after weighing factors such as the seriousness of the offense, the circumstances leading to delay, and the limited impact on the administration of justice. The opinion emphasized that Congress could not have intended violations of the Act to leave a defendant without remedy and noted that new trial orders are interlocutory and generally not appealable.

criminal lawprocedure

This Title VII case concerned whether Trailways, Inc.'s "no beard" policy for drivers and other public-contact employees violated federal law by discriminating against black workers. The court determined that the policy created an unlawful disparate impact because pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB), a medical condition requiring abstinence from shaving, affects roughly 25% of black males and is essentially unique to them, while Trailways offered no evidence of business necessity to justify the rule. The opinion explained that the policy resulted in the exclusion of qualified black applicants without any articulated nondiscriminatory reason, relying on statistical medical evidence and disparate-impact precedents. The court allowed the company to retain a no-beard rule if it made an exception for employees providing medical certification of PFB, with requirements that beards remain neatly trimmed.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case was a declaratory judgment action brought by Republic Insurance to determine whether its homeowners policy issued to the Pipers covered injuries suffered by a one-year-old child, Krystal Ervin, while under the care of Ina Piper. The policy excluded coverage for injuries intended by the insured or arising out of business pursuits, with a carve-out for activities ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits. The court held there was no coverage, finding that the injuries arose from Ina Piper's operation of a licensed day-care business at her home, that the Pipers had been repeatedly informed homeowners policies do not cover such activities, and that the child-care activity was not one ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits. The court further held that the insurer had not waived or become estopped from denying coverage by defending the underlying state-court tort suit under a reservation of rights, because the reservation was timely and no prejudice resulted. The opinion concludes that the policy affords no coverage for Krystal Ervin's injuries.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved grand jury subpoenas served on two Colorado banks seeking customer financial records, creating a conflict for the banks between federal and state law on privacy protections. The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Miller had ruled that bank customers have no Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in their records, while the Colorado Supreme Court in Charnes v. DiGiacomo held that the state constitution creates such an expectation, allowing customers to intervene and potentially sue banks for unauthorized disclosure. The banks moved to quash the subpoenas due to fears of state court liability if they complied without notice to customers. The court denied the motions to quash, holding that federal grand jury rules apply and banks cannot be compelled to maintain secrecy or face obstruction charges for notifying customers, but banks may choose whether to provide notice based on their own risk assessment under state law.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

In United States v. Feeney, defendant Feeney sought to subpoena government officials to present evidence under Brady v. Maryland showing his cooperation with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, perceived official approval of his actions, and lack of criminal intent, both for post-conviction motions and sentencing purposes. The government moved to quash or limit the subpoenas based on Department of Justice regulations in 28 C.F.R. § 16.21 et seq., which require prior approval for testimony and allow refusal on grounds of ongoing investigations or file confidentiality. The court rejected broad assertions of governmental privilege, finding that such claims in criminal cases are narrowly limited by precedents like United States v. Reynolds and United States v. Nixon, and that Brady principles require disclosure of material evidence. It ordered an evidentiary hearing with the subpoenaed officials required to appear and testify, subject only to specific, justified restrictions, and noted that use immunity could apply to facilitate testimony.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a convicted defendant, Feeney, who sought access to government-held tapes of his conversations and related testimony to support mitigation arguments at sentencing and potentially a new trial, asserting that his activities were known to or encouraged by Department of Justice officials. The court ruled that the defendant must be permitted full access to the materials under Brady v. Maryland, rejecting government motions to quash subpoenas or withhold evidence based on claims of ongoing investigations, secrecy directives, or regulations like 28 C.F.R. 16.21. The core reasoning centered on due process requirements that exculpatory evidence relevant to punishment be disclosed, with adverse evidentiary inferences drawn against the government for directing witnesses to refuse testimony, which made evidence unavailable to the defense; the court emphasized that Brady rights are not limited and that sentencing cannot proceed without allowing the defendant to review the tapes.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involves a criminal defendant who filed a motion asking the district court to grant use immunity to a potential defense witness, Pamela Lynn Nelson, so that she could testify without fear of self-incrimination regarding the defendant's lack of knowledge of the charged offense. The court denied the motion. It declined to follow the Third Circuit's decision in Government of the Virgin Islands v. Smith, which had recognized a limited judicial authority to order immunity when necessary to prevent distortion of the fact-finding process. The core reasoning was that only Congress, through statutes such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002-6003, may confer immunity authority, and that judges lack any inherent or due-process-based power to grant "judicial immunity" because doing so could impose unknown costs on the government and exceed the judicial role.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the Secretary of Labor's application for an ex parte OSHA administrative inspection warrant for the C.F. & I. Steel Corporation plant, based on employee complaints as part of a compliance program. After prior unsuccessful attempts to obtain uniform district procedures for such warrants following Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., the district judge scheduled a hearing on the application rather than issuing the warrant immediately. The Secretary appealed directly from the routine notice of hearing. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that a notice of hearing is not a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and that allowing such appeals would disrupt district court calendaring. The underlying question of whether OSHA warrants must be issued ex parte was left unresolved for another case.

procedurelabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves multiple defendants charged with willful trespassing on Rocky Flats, a federal nuclear facility, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2278a and 10 C.F.R. Part 860. The defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing that the statute and regulations were unconstitutionally vague, involved improper delegation of authority, were not properly in effect, and that prosecutions lacked required FBI investigation or personal authorization by the Attorney General; some also sought to raise justification defenses based on civil disobedience or necessity. The court denied the motions, holding that the statutes and regulations are valid and properly posted, that the Attorney General's involvement satisfied statutory prerequisites, and that no justification defense is available because it would permit individuals to override federal law. The court ruled that trials will focus solely on whether defendants intentionally and willfully entered the posted property, with intent and willfulness defined accordingly.

criminal lawfederal power

This case involved a dispute between BA Mortgage Co., Inc., a subsidiary of Bank of America, and Unisal Development, Inc., over an alleged commitment by Unisal to provide a permanent takeout loan after BA extended a $2.1 million construction loan for a Ramada Inn motel project in Estes Park, Colorado. The project faced issues including an overstated appraisal, undisclosed changes to loan terms like furniture leasing, and conflicts arising from the borrower's multiple roles as owner, architect, and contractor. Plaintiff asserted a contract claim (after dismissing a fraud claim) seeking over $3 million in damages for breach when Unisal did not fulfill the takeout. The court entered judgment for the defendant, finding that plaintiff had not proven damages recoverable under contract rules requiring foreseeability of harm at the time of agreement, and that plaintiff's calculations for operating losses, lost profits, interest, and other costs did not meet that standard.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved claims by parents of Mexican-American students in Mesa County Valley School District No. 51 alleging employment discrimination against Hispanic individuals in the hiring of teachers and staff, brought under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Fourteenth Amendment, and related statutes, following an earlier ruling on educational opportunities. The court, after reviewing statistical evidence and hiring practices as directed by the appellate court using standards from Hazelwood School District v. United States, found no pattern or practice of discrimination. The reasoning centered on the school district's successful recruitment efforts relative to the available qualified applicant pool, with any disparities attributable to factors outside the district's control, such as wage levels and geographic preferences, leading to judgment for the defendants.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case consolidated three IRS summons enforcement actions against third parties holding records of taxpayer Donald West. In two cases involving banks, the court granted West's motion to intervene as of right under 26 U.S.C. § 7609 because the entities were third-party record keepers. In the third case against Income Realty and Mortgage, Inc., intervention was denied because the company was not shown to be a broker under the statute. The court ordered enforcement of all summonses after finding the IRS met the good-faith requirements of United States v. Powell, with no evidence of bad faith or improper purpose.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

This case concerns an IRS administrative summons served on the Bank of Monte Vista, a third-party record keeper under 26 U.S.C. § 7609, seeking a customer's financial records as part of a tax investigation. The customer exercised his statutory right to stay compliance by notifying the bank not to produce the records, leading the IRS to petition the court for enforcement. The court declined to adopt the government's proposed order that would have required personal appearance in Pueblo and imposed abbreviated deadlines for intervention and responses. Instead, it directed the bank to respond in writing within 20 days explaining any refusal and scheduled a hearing in Denver, while preserving the bank's rights to challenge the summons's reasonableness under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The reasoning emphasized that the 1976 amendments to § 7609 create enforceable intervention and stay rights that the government must respect, and that standard procedural rules apply rather than expedited IRS preferences.

taxesfederal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case consolidated multiple felony charges against defendant Alberico, who was convicted by a jury on six of seven counts after a lengthy pretrial process involving bond reductions, numerous motions, venue changes due to publicity, a withdrawn guilty plea, and new defense notices. The opinion recounts the procedural history in detail, including defense requests for continuances and claims of governmental misconduct, while addressing a motion related to pretrial publicity and media access. The court decided to change the trial location to Grand Junction, Colorado, to reduce potential juror bias and authorized the court reporter to provide transcripts of hearings to the Denver Publishing Company. Core reasoning rested on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing freedom of the press, such as Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, which directs reliance on media judgment rather than prior restraints or censorship, while using venue shifts to protect trial fairness for both sides.

criminal lawfree speechprocedure

This eminent domain case involved the valuation of a 161-acre landlocked wilderness tract surrounded by Rocky Mountain National Park, which had been accessed only by a 1.8-mile foot and horse trail. The court ruled that the property must be valued based on its existing trail access at the time of taking, plus any incremental value from the probability of obtaining a Park Service permit for road construction, while accounting for associated costs, uncertainties, and NEPA requirements. The reasoning centered on the absence of any federal statute allowing private condemnation of U.S. lands, the lack of reserved condemnation rights when the park was established, and the unlikelihood of a road permit being granted. Expert testimony would guide the jury's determination of any added value under instructions reflecting these legal limits.

propertyfederal powerenvironment

This case is a follow-up damages determination in DeWeese v. United States after liability had already been found. The court awarded the plaintiff a total of $197,439.35, broken down as $65,000 for past lost earnings, $25,000 for future lost earnings, $100,000 for pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, and $7,439.35 in special damages, while denying any recovery for claimed lost handyman services around the home. The judge calculated lost earnings using after-tax "take-home" pay rather than gross pay, relying on Tenth Circuit precedent in Sanchez v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company, and rejected any inflation adjustment or expert projections as too speculative and unreliable for a 45-year period. The opinion emphasizes that damages for pain and suffering lack any precise arithmetic measure and must be fixed by the court's discretion.

torts & liabilitytaxes

The case involved a one-count indictment charging defendant Guler Orman with distribution of heroin. After her extradition from France and various pretrial motions, the district court dismissed the indictment against her. The court found that Drug Enforcement Administration agents had eavesdropped on confidential attorney-client conversations through illicit means, including a wiretap and an interpreter, thereby violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights and irretrievably prejudicing her defense. Although the Speedy Trial Act also factored into pretrial release issues, the dismissal rested on the constitutional violation stemming from the government's improper acquisition of privileged information. The court sealed most of the case file and exonerated the defendant's bond.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure